Translation:A car drives up to the gate, and I walk up to the car.
Why "up to" and not just "to"? Also, how are we supposed to guess the verb? I wrote "A car goes to the gate, and I go to the car." What in the above sentence would make that wrong?
The weirdnesses of English. :´D
"Drives/pulls up to" implies the car is close to the gate and moves in such a matter that it ends up parking right in front of it. This is what the Hungarian sentence is expressing.
"Drives to" rather means that it's a bit further away, and the gate is it's general goal, but it may not end up right there. Might park in a parking lot instead and the driver walks over to the gate.
And cars don't exactly "go", unless traffic "goes slow" or something. Cars drive, park, pull up, or generally "move".
Generally yes, but regionally sometimes it is said "is the car going?" to mean "is the car sitting in the driveway while turned on" or some similar situation.
Ah, certainly. I think most people would say "The car is running" in this case, though.
Sentences like this make me think I will never learn Hungarian. Isn't áll - stand?
The car comes to a stand at the gate and I go over and stand by the car.
Thank you for the explanation. But I would never cone up with a translation like that :)
Yeah, English is a bit weird there. Doesn't like combining verbs of no movement with directional indicators, so you have to get creative.
That's how cars move, by driving, whereas people move by walking.
The movement is implied by the -hoz endings.
At the end of the movement, the car and the person stand, which is why áll is used.
But in English, we can't "stand to somewhere". (Despite valiant attempts by the course to teach this construction.) So the concept of movement in those sentences has to be expressed somehow else in English.
It is very difficult to guess whether Duolingo will want a more direct translation, or such an indirect translation as this. It is difficult to guess that this indirect translation is the one that it wants. I find this unit very frustrating. It hasn't gotten any better since the last time I practiced it, although I am reporting a lot.
Why not "moves to" for both? That makes sense in English and doesn't provide many different and incorrect translations like this.
This time I tried it with another version: A car drives up to the gate, whereas I stand at (or to) the car. My problem in this sentence is, that I see too many possibilities. Is it one car or two? Standing, driving, parking, walking up too.....???. Copy and paste is the only solution here.
A car goes to the gate, and I walk up to the car. - Egy autó megy a kapuhoz, én pedig felsétálok az autóhoz.
In some other sentence with "áll" + "-hoz/hez/höz" ("A rendorok az ajtóhoz áll" or sth like that) a translation "The policemen stand by the door" is accepted. So, naturally, I'd try it here and it obviously does not work. I get the whole "stand to sth" issue that is invalid in English. But I don't get why basically same stuff is accepted in one case and not in the other. Or is it just not same?
An argument that people often make is that cars apparently don't exactly "stand" in English. I don't think that is weird, but then again I'm not a native. :´)
I really enjoy the "pulls up" translation for this situation, which is accepted in a few sentences. A car moves to some spot and comes to a halt there.
A car is considered to be "standing" if it is in a spot with its motor running (i.e., the driver is letting off a passenger for example).
The nightmare sentence of vague possibilities where English has numerous permutations that mean much the same but the computer can't cope with all of them. I put " a car parks at the gate and I go up to the car" but it wasn't accepted. Now, the verb for getting to the car which the computer wants is walk but, of course, setal is nowhere to be seen. I would say that go is just as accurate. Equally, we know that, in this instance, all doesn't simply mean stand because kapuhoz denotes movement. If a car parks at the gate, it's just the same as if it drove up to the gate and stopped. So, what we have here is a sentence which requires memory. You have to know what the computer is willing to accept rather than what is an acceptable translation. We will all despair of this one!
Will I ever understand? In the previous sentece "go" was rejected ,and the car was standing by the fence ,here I try ""stand" and it is rejected again! If I am right "áll"means "to go and stand,to move up to". Isn't it rather a problem with the English translation,altjough we can understand what it means in Hungarian?
Áll generally means "to stand", and if used with something that indicates that a movement is happening, it means something like "move to that point and end up standing there". English doesn't have one single satisfying way to translate this concept, so there's a lot of working-around happening in this course. There are many ways to express that in English, and this course is still in beta stage, so not all the answers are accepted yet. Please report anything you come across that you think should be accepted.